Notary Challenge to Non-Tax Revenue Rate-Setting Powers: MK 203/PUU-XXIV/2026

In Decision Number 203/PUU-XXIV/2026, read on 16 July 2026, the Constitutional Court of Indonesia declared inadmissible a petition for material review of Law Number 9 of 2018 on Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP). The petitioner, Anisitus Amanat, a notary based in Semarang, challenged the phrase "government regulation and/or ministerial regulation" in Article 4 paragraph (3) of the law, which governs how types of non-tax revenue are set, and the whole of Article 8 paragraph (3), which provides that tariffs for non-tax revenue arising from services are set by government regulation and/or ministerial regulation. He asked the Court to test both provisions against Articles 23A, 23C, 28D paragraph (1) and 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Background to the Petition

The petition arose from the fees notaries pay to extend their term of office. The petitioner relied on Constitutional Court Decision Number 84/PUU-XXII/2024, which allows a notary's term to be extended year by year up to the age of 70, subject to an annual certificate of physical and mental health from a designated hospital. He stated that each extension carries a non-tax revenue charge, and that under the annex to Government Regulation Number 45 of 2024 the charge differs by the work-area category set in Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 19 of 2021: Rp 40 million per person per extension in Category A areas and Rp 15 million in Category B areas. He argued that charges of this size for one year of service were unequal and discriminatory compared with other state services.

His constitutional argument was that non-tax revenue is part of state finances, because Article 20 of the law requires all such revenue to be managed within the state budget. On that basis he contended that Article 23C of the Constitution, which states that other matters concerning state finances are regulated by law, requires the types and tariffs of non-tax revenue to be set by statute rather than delegated to government or ministerial regulations.

Legal Reasoning

The Court first confirmed its authority under Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution and Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of the Constitutional Court Law. It then turned to the formal requirements of the petition before considering standing or the merits. The Court recorded that at the preliminary hearing on 18 June 2026 it had advised the petitioner, under Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 36 paragraph (3) of Constitutional Court Regulation Number 7 of 2025 on procedure in judicial review cases (PMK 7/2025), to improve the sections on the Court's authority, legal standing, the grounds of the petition and the relief sought. The petitioner filed a revised petition online on 28 June 2026 and in writing on 1 July 2026.

Measured against Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (3) of PMK 7/2025, the Court found that the revised petition followed the required format. It stressed, however, that compliance with the format alone is not enough: it also assesses whether the content of each section is precise and clear, and whether the grounds and the relief sought are consistent with each other.

On that assessment the Court identified two problems. First, one of the standards the petitioner used to test Article 4 paragraph (3) and Article 8 paragraph (3) was Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation. The Court held that in a constitutional review the challenged statutory norm must be tested against norms of the 1945 Constitution, citing Article 2 paragraph (5) of PMK 7/2025, which defines material review as review of the content of a statute alleged to conflict with the Constitution.

Second, the Court examined the relief sought against Article 51A paragraph (5) letters b and c of the Constitutional Court Law, which frame what a petitioner in a material review may ask the Court to declare, and against Article 68 of PMK 7/2025, which allows the Court to find a petition unclear where the grounds and the relief do not match, where a claim appears in one but not the other, or where the requests contradict each other. The petitioner had asked, among other things, that the challenged phrase be struck out, that Article 8 paragraph (3) be declared to have no binding force, and that notary extension tariffs be set at 50 percent for Categories A, B and C, or by agreement between the government and notaries through their regional boards, until a new law is enacted. The text of the judgment available to CRPG at the time of writing ends partway through the Court's assessment of these requests, and this memo does not reconstruct the remainder of that reasoning.

The Ruling

The operative part of the decision reads: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima", meaning that the petitioner's application is declared inadmissible. The Court therefore did not rule on whether the challenged provisions of the Non-Tax State Revenue Law conflict with the Constitution, and both provisions remain in force as enacted.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.id.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

• Consult the official regulation text from government sources
• Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
• Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.